Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T07:09:00.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Sucrose as an energy source for growing pigs: energy utilization for protein deposition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

S. A. Beech
Affiliation:
NSW Agriculture and Fisheries, Wollongbar Agricultural Institute, Wollongbar, New South Wales 2477, Australia
R. Elliott
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia
E. S. Batterham
Affiliation:
NSW Agriculture and Fisheries, Wollongbar Agricultural Institute, Wollongbar, New South Wales 2477, Australia
Get access

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to determine the effect of sucrose as an energy source on energy utilization and protein retention by growing pigs. Growing pigs (20 to 50 kg live weight) were restrictively fed (three times maintenance) either a control wheat-based diet (14 MJ digestible energy (DE) per kg), a sucrose-based diet (15 MJ DE per kg) or a wheat-based diet made i so-energetic with the sucrose diet by the addition of oil. Net energy (NE) content of the diet, energy utilization, protein and fat deposition were measured.

Both the sucrose- and the iso-energetic wheat-based diets improved energy utilization and increased NE retention. They also increased fat deposition (P < 0·05) but had no effect on protein deposition (P > 0·05) compared with the wheat-based control. Increased DE utilization in the sucrose-based diet appeared due to (i) lower dietary fibre, (ii) a better balance of amino acids, or possibly due to (iii) increased fat synthesis due to sucrose metabolism. The lack of effect of sucrose on protein deposition appeared due to either (i) an increased amino acid requirement as a result of the higher NE content of the diet or (ii) preferential use of sucrose for fat deposition.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council. 1981. The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
Beech, S. A., Elliott, R. and Batterham, E. S. 1990. Sucrose as an energy source for growing pigs: digestible energy content and energy utilization. Animal Production 51: 343355.Google Scholar
Black, J. L., Campbell, R. G., Williams, I. H., James, K. J. and Davies, G. T. 1986. Simulation of energy and amino acid utilisation in the pig. Research and Development in Agriculture 3: 121145.Google Scholar
Brooks, C. C. 1972. Molasses, sugar (sucrose), corn, tallow, soybean oil and mixed fats as sources of energy for growing swine. Journal of Animal Science 34: 217224.Google Scholar
Burlacu, G., Baia, G., Ionila, D., Moisa, D., Tascenco, V., Viscan, I. and Stoica, I. 1973. Efficiency of the utilization of the energy of food in piglets, after weaning. Journal of Agriculture Science, Cambridge 81: 295302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chevalier, M. M., Wiley, J. H. and Leveille, G. A. 1972. Effect of dietary fructose on fatty acid synthesis in the adipose tissue and liver of the rat. Journal of Nutrition 102: 337342.Google Scholar
Fuller, M. F. and Wang, T. C. 1987. Amino acid requirements of the growing pig. In Manipulating Pig Production (ed. Australasian Pig Science Association Committee), pp. 97111. Australasian Pig Science Association, Werribee, Australia.Google Scholar
Jordan, J. W. and Brown, W. O. 1970. The retention of energy and protein in the baby pig fed on cows' milk. In Energy Metabolism of Farm Animals (ed. Schurch, A. and Wenk, C.), pp. 161164. Juris Druck and Verlag, Zurich.Google Scholar
Just, A. 1982a. The net energy value of balanced diets for growing pigs. Livestock Production Science 8: 541555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Just, A. 1982b. The net energy value of crude (catabolized) protein for growth in pigs. Livestock Production Science 9: 349360.Google Scholar
Just, A. 1982c. The net energy value of crude fat for growth in pigs. Livestock Production Science 9: 501509.Google Scholar
Just, A., Fernandez, J., Jorgensen, H. 1983. The net energy value of diets for growth in pigs in relation to the fermentative processes in the digestive tract and the site of absorption of the nutrients. Livestock Production Science 10: 171186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keys, J. E. and Debarthe, J. V. 1974. Site and extent of carbohydrate, dry matter, energy and protein digestion and the rate of passage of grain diets in swine. Journal of Animal Science 39: 5762.Google Scholar
Maner, J. H., Obando, H., Portela, R. and Gallo, J. 1969. Effect of levels of refined sugar (sucrose) on the performance of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 29: 139 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Michaelis, O. E. and Szepesi, B. 1973. Effect of various sugars on hepatic glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase, malic enzyme and total liver lipid of the rat. Journal of Nutrition 103: 697705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rerat, A. A., Vaissade, P. and Vauoelade, P. 1984. Absorption kinetics of some carbohydrates in conscious pigs. 1. Qualitative aspects. British Journal of Nutrition 51: 505515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schieman, R., Nehring, K., Hoffman, J., Jentsch, W. and Chudy, A. 1971. Energetische Futterbewertung und Energienormen. VEB, Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Schumacher, E., Elliott, R., McMeniman, N. P. and Griffiths, I. 1986. Evaluation of raw sugar as an energy source for growing/fattening pigs. Proceedings of the Australian Society of Animal Production 16: 359362.Google Scholar
Standing Committee on Agriculture. 1987. Feeding Standards for Australian Livestock Pigs. CSIRO Editorial and Publishing Unit, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Waterman, R. A., Rosmos, D. R., Tsai, A. C., Miller, E. R. and Leveille, G. A. 1975. Effects of dietary carbohydrate source on growth, plasma metabolites and lipogenesis in rats, pigs and chicks. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 150: 220225.Google Scholar